Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:30, 15 August 2006 view sourceSam Korn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,849 editsm I'll spell how I like, Mr Weys← Previous edit Revision as of 18:13, 15 August 2006 view source Haukurth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators26,987 edits Withdrawing request, per the recommendation of three arbitrators. Let's have the RFC run its course and if there are still concerns we can try something more structured. Thanks to all who commented!Next edit →
Line 61: Line 61:
// END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // --> // END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // -->
<!-- ADD CASE BELOW NEW REQUESTS AT THE TOP--> <!-- ADD CASE BELOW NEW REQUESTS AT THE TOP-->

=== Kelly Martin ===

: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

====Summary by filing party====

] is incivil and confrontational, leading to frequent conflicts.

==== Involved parties ====

*]
*]

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====

Link at Kelly's talk page. I'll also notify those which I mentioned or cited in my summary. ] 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====

Many people have on multiple occasions expressed concerns with Kelly's civility but I haven't seen her take such comments to heart yet. I think the best example is where Kelly protects a page and then says: "I protected this because you idiots are edit warring over it" When three different users politely object to Kelly's personal attack
she responds with: "I stand by my original words"

More recent examples, per Cyde's request below, of people asking Kelly to be more civil or criticizing her for incivility:

See also:

*]
*]

==== Statement by Haukur ====

Kelly has access to tools restricted to a small handful of trusted people. I think it is important for a productive and healthy working environment that there is a feeling of trust between contributors with access to these sensitive tools and the larger community of editors.

In this light I'm uncomfortable that Kelly has said that she is "fed up" with the Misplaced Pages community, that her "disdain" for it "grows by the day", that she is "fucking sick and tired of the constant harassment and perfidy from Misplaced Pages's so-called community", that "this place is fucked up" and that she "could care less if the community has any confidence in me". At the same time she said that she is "rapidly losing interest in doing anything to assist it".

Kelly regards several of her fellow administrators as unsuited to the task and has difficulty working with them. She called on ] to resign his adminship having told him that his "logic and commonsense is so absent that it would be criminal of me to even pay any attention to anything you might say ... Please consider a different pastime; you may find ] more your style" On the same day she called on ] to resign after blocking him for 15 minutes. Earlier she had talked about "idiots masquerading as admins who need to have their privileges revoked".

Kelly has contributed to deletion discussions with comments that are unnecessarily militant and add no information. While comments such as "Stop wasting our time with this crap" , "Get a life" or "Keep this crap deleted (and delete the users who keep recreating it)" can be said to be commonplace they are not what I would expect of a contributor held to the highest standards. More jarring and distasteful is when another participant in a discussion is confronted with joking threats of physical harm: "recommend that the nominator be taken out behind the woodshed and flogged" and "Do you prefer a beech switch, or a leather strap?"

As Kelly herself has noted, tact is a major part of the admin job which is why it is disappointing to see admin actions combined with incivility in comments such as "I protected this because you idiots are edit warring over it"

Miscellaneous examples of incivility:

*"stop acting like you got your brain at a K-Mart blue light special sale!"
*"don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out"
*"Just fucking shut up about it, already."

In spite of the above, Kelly often criticizes other contributors for incivility. On one occasion she blocked ] for 24 hours for making the RFA comment: "'''Support''' wow, userbox haters reached the new all-time low." While Grue's comment was unhelpful (and he later revised it) it clearly did not merit a block, especially not without previous warning. ] 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by Kelly Martin ====

To the charge of frequently being involved in conflict, I plead guilty. I am frequently involved in conflict because one of the things I do on Misplaced Pages is work to find and resolve conflicts. This is also why I am often confrontational: when I step into a conflict to resolve it, I find that I must often confront the people who are exacerbating the conflict in order to either get them to stop (by shaming them, if necessary) or to convince others to not allow them to continue enflaming the conflict. The people whose toes I must step on in order to resolve the conflict they perpetuate frequently resent this. Many of the situations I deliberately step into are basically landmines; it has long been my modus operandi to deal with landmines by deliberately blowing them up and taking the heat for having done so onto myself. This has resulted in a smallish number of very vocal people disliking me; a representative roster of them may be found by examining the Requests for Comments mentioned in Haukur's bill. Overall, I believe that my actions are to the benefit of the project, and what harm they do create is focused mainly on people who are disrupting the project anyway, either intentionally or, more commonly, recklessly or negligently.

I also stand by the following statement, which I made on the talk page of my second RfC. It expresses my feelings on these matters pretty well:

:I don't "tone it down" to protect the feelings of people who think that they have some God-Given Right To Be Consulted On Every Matter. I am not obliged to get permission before taking action on Misplaced Pages. I am charged, as an administrator, to exercise the authority I have been given with due concern for the best interests of the encyclopedia. I act as I see fit toward that goal. If my actions harm Misplaced Pages, then I assume that I will have my authority taken away. That has yet to happen, and frankly I don't think it's going to any time soon, either.

:In this particular case, there had been a sterile edit war and a sterile discussion going on for at least a month. It was obvious to me, and should be obvious to anyone who looks, that the trenches had been dug and nobody was going to budge. Previous attempts (mainly by others, not so much by me) to reach a consensus had failed. The Gordian knot had been tied but good. I did what needed to be done: I cut the knot. And yes, some people complained. Some because they were on the losing side of the decision, and to them I say tough; maybe you should have cooperated in an attempt to reach compromise, instead of deadlocking the discussion in your infinite stubbornness. Others, because they don't like it when they feel left out of the decision making process, and to them I also say tough; maybe next time you'll consider being bold when the situation calls for it, or at least you'll do something other than stand around impotently reciting chapter and verse from the Holy Book of Misplaced Pages when what is really needed is for someone to make a decision.

:I think it does Misplaced Pages good to "stir up the hornet's next" every once in a while. You people get too complacent, too convinced of your own moral rightness as you run around chanting your holy verses. And all the time you're running around accreting more and more layers of stifling bureaucracy on top of what is supposed to be an exciting, fun project to write an encyclopedia. Once in a while we need to burn off some of that bureaucracy, and I, for one, don't mind a weenie roast once in a while. Marshmallows, anyone?

I will not call for the Arbitration Committee to make any particular judgment in response to this request for Arbitration. The Committee knows me well; I worked alongside you for three months and have continued to keep company with many of you since leaving the Committee in January. You, as well as anyone, know my commitment to Misplaced Pages. If it is your collective wisdom that I should change my ways, I will do so. You need only but ask. ] (]) 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by Cyde Weys ====
A lot of the alleged instances of incivility are actually rather funny. Take these for instance:
*logic and commonsense is so absent that it would be criminal of me to even pay any attention to anything you might say ... Please consider a different pastime; you may find Agora Nomic more your style
*Keep this crap deleted (and delete the users who keep recreating it)
*recommend that the nominator be taken out behind the woodshed and flogged
*Do you prefer a beech switch, or a leather strap?
*stop acting like you got your brain at a K-Mart blue light special sale!
Should Kelly really be chastised, or should she be commended? Inquiring minds want to know. --] 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by Sjakkalle ====
Would like to mention the creation of ], a list akin to ] made with the intention "to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it." . This was part of a rather contentious debate on the Administrator's Noticeboard, now archived .

Even though I had some (mild) confrontations with Kelly Martin in the past, I nonetheless closed the MFD debate on it as a delete (in spite of a vote count which would normally be "no consensus") since I viewed the page as harrassment. I will respect it if the ArbCom decides that I ought not to have closed that MFD discussion.

Hence, some of the civility incidents are therefore of fairly recent date, although I will note that no RFC has yet been filed over civility concerns. Note that such concerns ''did'' surface at ].

<small>As a sidenote, I will express my opinion that Kelly Martin has a fine record of service for Misplaced Pages, and done a lot of legwork in combatting vandalism, as well as writing a lot of fine content and carrying out the tedious work of finding and correcting small errors.</small> ] ] 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by Badlydrawnjeff ====

While this arbitration case has its roots in older issues, recent situations by Kelly Martin have shown that the apparent regular pleas for civility and cooperation have gone otherwise unnoticed. The recent situation which was magnified by the second Request for Comment listed above was started at ], where Kelly decided unilaterally that discussion "ends now" regarding the use of fair use based on a "conversation" at the most recent Wikimania. Instead of seeking consensus, one of our important guidelines, she simply created policy out of what amounts to thin air for those of us a) not privy to her "conversation," and b) those of us unable to be at Wikimania for whatever reason, which was apparently a problem since she created the policy based on "several sessions on copyright" that she attended. Since there's no recordings of the sessions she claims to have attended, we have no idea what was actually discussed, but it doesn't stop her from setting the policy, especially since she's allegedly "very good at it." The expectation that editors know of this unwritten, undecided, and unknown policy, and then block freely on it - even if her block in the case in question that spawned the RfC ultimately was a good call - is a horrible violation of the good faith she should hold other editors to, and raises some serious civility issues - the same type that spawned the diffs up above.

Furthermore, her actions in this case have possibly made the fair use logo situation worse in the short term, as it did with her userbox actions at the turn of the new year (and the subject of the first RfC). I was not involved in the userbox situation, but it's clear that the German Userbox Solution took so long to get rolling because, instead of seeking consensus and alternatives as we typically do, she took it on herself to slash userboxes left and right. Consensus builds smart policy, and gains the support of your fellow editors, not unilateralism that only ends up dividing the community. (diffs forthcoming). Even as recent as yesterday, she implies that those who are opposed to her methods are "trolling" and that they actually "'engender' discussion, without being able to admit that, maybe, she was wrong. .

The admins at Misplaced Pages are supposed to be trusted members of the community, intending to help write an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin, unfortunately, has lost the trust of this community through her constant actions and attitude toward the same editors attempting to reach the same goal, and it is magnified by the wide amount of tools she has been granted over the years. She claims to have lost patience with many of the editors. Unfortunately, many of the editors have lost faith in Kelly Martin due to these actions. --] <small>]</small> 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by Karwynn ====

Limited involvement with Kelly, but I think a lot of the issue doesn't come from a disagreement on Kelly Martin's behavior, it's more whether or not is is actually incivil. She's admitted that she intimidates less experienced users when they're not acting in a manner she prefers, and that seems like a huge detriment to community cooperation. I don't think there's any reason she should be penalized for holding[REDACTED] or the community in low regard as long as she's trying to improve it, but the lack of respect for Misplaced Pages policy - as in purposely being incivil and inflammatory by intimidation or rudeness - shows a unilateralism not desirable by any editors, much less administrators. Honestly, it seems like she knows she's being disruptively uncivil, but feels it's justified if she ends up on the right side of this issue or that one. Basically, I think the bottom line is not so much whether or not this "technically" in incivil or whatever, it's that she just doesn't respect other people, and that leads to disuptive conflict. NOte: not sure what kind of involvement I have to have to comment here, please remove my comments if they are inappropriate (please tell me why though) ] ] 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Observation by Mackensen ====
The evidence for this case, if it can be called that, encompasses several months without demonstrating a pattern of incivility. The fact that you can pull diffs from different months does not a pattern create. This reminds one of Disraeli's withering remark regarding the "felicitous art of quotation." The most recent RfC indicated no community consensus over Kelly's actions, althought there was strong support for&ndash;and against&ndash;them. Under the circumstances I can conceive of no basis for this request, and heartily suggest dismissal. ] ] 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Observation by Rootology ====
The primary basis of this (and the previous userbox issue) should not be interpreted as a matter of time. Yes, any amount of data can be pulled from one's entire[REDACTED] historical record, and this is a good thing, as it displays here Kelly's sense of apparent entitlement to run--as another admin called her on RfC2--"like a bull in a china shop" over people. Respect of your peers and the wider community. From ]:

::::<I>Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Misplaced Pages. Administrators must be courteous and must exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others.</i>

Historically, based on all of this, Kelly Martin has not displayed these qualities, or more distressingly appears to selectively turn them on and off based on whom she is dealing with. The entire record of her actions for the purposes of this should be taken into account, as they establish that this is not a one off, twice off, or thrice off matter--but on ongoing, consistent display of one's behavior, as opposed to any sort of artistic or selective interpretation of behavior. If an individual historically displays the same behavior, in an ongoing pattern, be it on a yearly, monthly, weekly, or hourly basis, with no apparent sign of nor willingness to change that behavior, it is safe to assume that any such behavioral pattern may be ingrained with that individual as a core part of their either total or online persona. As we have a historical record of Kelly's actions in a (as applicable) unilateral, brusque, rude, incivil, no regard for process nor peers, and apparent general insensitivity to other users of Misplaced Pages, it may be that such behavior will continue indefinitely leading to further and greater disruption and wasted time for the project and it's users as time progresses. ] (]) 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by Oleg Alexandrov ====

I think this is a situation which probably the ArbCom never encountered before. Kelly Martin is an administrator, former arbitrator, with (former?) CheckUser privileges, and current candidate for the board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation. I am also sure that she cares very much about Misplaced Pages and she been very helpful to the project on many occasions.

In the same time, I have had the opinion for some time that Kelly does not know how deal with other Wikipedians, can be very rude and perform divisive actions. Other recent worrisome issues are her recent creation of a list of Wikipedians who voted oppose at a request for adminship, and the issue described in ] where she has "formulated" a policy on the spot, and (as far as I am aware) proceeded to immediately enforce it with a block.

Is lack of good judgment in dealing with other users sufficient ground for an ArbCom ruling? That's what this arbitration request will find out. ] (]) 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

====Comment by David D.====

], the subsequent RfC against Durin (a prominent critic in her RfB), the userbox fiasco, the list fiasco and the recent bulldozing of policy without dialog. The common theme is that KB always has an excuse, never accepts criticism. This refusal to analyse her own behaviour, with respect to maintaining a healthy collaborative climate at wikipedia, is the primary reason I support this next step from the RfC.

Admins and other ''respected'' wikipedians need to be more open to discussion. At the very least they should be more transparent with regard to their rationales. Kelly and others should be using the strength of their argument to persuade other wikipedians they are correct, NOT the strength of their ''connections''. And certainly not with condescending and arrogant statements that seem quite common when even a hint of criticism is on the horizon.

Kelly, and others in a similar position, cite that users should ], while showing little themselves. This is a problem for[REDACTED] where all are volunteers. Continuing in this vain will drive some away, will make others less productive and certainly piss people off. While she and others may not consider her actions incivil that does not mean she should not adjust her approach to interacting with other editors. As far as i can tell she refuses to even consider she has a problem.

I have no problem with her contributions. I agree with most of her stances. This is not about policy, this is about her inability to be constructive in a tense situation. It is about her inability to build consensus with her critics. ] ] 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
: Recusing from this application. My strong views on this matter are well known. --] 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0) ====
* Reject. The second RfC was opened on 8 August, and is being actively edited. So this seems premature to me. ] 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
* Reject. Some elements of concern here, but agree that it would be better to let the RFC run its course. - ] 17:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
* Reject without prejudice, especially towards a more focussed, structured request. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


=== Pat8722 === === Pat8722 ===

Revision as of 18:13, 15 August 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 22 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Pat8722

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1 (BorgHunter)

Though I would have liked very much to avoid it, I see the Arbitration Committee as the only viable solution to the problem we have brewing here. User Pat8722 has had a history of tendentious editing, starting with Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and includes more recently Water_fluoridation_controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Temporomandibular_joint_disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), all three of which he has disrupted with regular edit warring. He is aware of the three revert rule, but has claimed on many occasions that he is within his rights to revert these articles three times per day, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly and by numerous admins. He responds to the corrections by repeating his claim that he is entitled to three reverts, and characterizing my first block of him (for 4 reverts in 24 and a half hours) as out-of-policy. He also has stated his desire, on numerous occasions, to de-sysop a number of admins because of their, as he characterizes them, "out-of-policy" blocks. Because of this constant disruption, he was for a short time indef-blocked by Knewledge Seeker, but that block was reversed by the community as being too much, too soon. After being unblocked, I observed more incivility and edit warring, and blocked him for two weeks (after previous blocks by me of 24 and 31 hours). This block, still in effect, has not deterred him from his behavior, as he engages in the same incivility as before, though now it is limited to his talk page. He has not expressed contrition for his behavior at all, or any understand of Misplaced Pages policy, though he frequently touts Misplaced Pages:Voting is evil, for some reason. He has repeated his desire to edit war, claiming that his opponents are vandals, despite evidence to the contrary and frequent urging to read WP:FAITH. Consensus is usually against him in these edit wars. Finally, he has ignored his RfC (in which no one came to his defense and all who edited the page made comments against his behavior), except to (somewhat paradoxically) refer to it as a document in defense of his edits to Libertarianism. I think the situation has reached the point where all attempts that could be made at reasoning with him have been made, and only a binding decision could deter him from his behavior. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tony's statement below, I'd like to note that I believe the only course which will prevent an eventual indef block of Pat8722 is arbitration, as the ArbCom is the only authority Pat8722 really seems to recognize. The community is handling the situation, yes, but because of Pat8722's stubbornness, I fear that leaving the situation to the community will ultimately lead to his indef block rather than his reformation into the very model of a modern Wikipedian. I think an arbitration case, though it may on the surface appear to be unnecessary, is the route that would best help Misplaced Pages. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2 (CBDunkerson)

As noted by Tony below, my involvement here was reviewing an unblock request and providing some suggestions for resolving disagreements. Overall my impression is that the user wants to help improve the encyclopedia, but very much has his own ways of doing things - which sometimes conflict with standards or the opinions of others and bring him into disputes. He has, I believe, some legitimate grounds for complaint in a few cases, but has conflated these beyond their merits and was not himself wholly blameless in any of the situations.
I don't know if an ArbCom case would help to 'get through to him' as BorgHunter suggests or not. I do agree that his current ideas about how things on Misplaced Pages are/should be run seem inconsistent and likely to lead to continuing conflict and eventually an indefinite block. However, I don't see ArbCom or any other particular course as being clearly more likely to prompt him to re-examine those views at this point.
Finally, please note that he is currently still blocked for the remainder of the week and thus unable to reply to this ArbCom motion on his own behalf. --CBD 11:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

It appears that this is a case where an editor, and he alone, disagrees with the eventual outcome of administrator action taken to deal with his behavior. The matter has been repeatedly reviewed, there is agreement on this user's problematic behavior, and the latest block by BorgHunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been reviewed and explicitly endorsed by Deckiller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), , and Kbdank71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) . CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reviewed in depth and promised to unblock if the editor agreed to make an effort to take on board legitimate criticism of his behavior . Saxifrage (talk · contribs) has also made constructive comments and has helped to have the block reviewed. The matter has also been raised by User:Pat8722 on the "unblock-en-l" mailing list, in which he characterized such blocks as "frivolous and malicious" and accused the blocking administrators of acting from political motivations.
The community seems to be quite capably dealing with this case without further intervention. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Jayjg, PinchasC & FloNight

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jayjg.

Note, after this note was left, it was removed by the same user that posted it see this diff and then blanked this case as well see this diff then readded by an ip see this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
See my response to Jayjg below, I removed the notice after I removed this RFA and intended to restore the notice when I decided to proceed with the RFA with the edit note "this seems to be necessary", the same comment I made when I restored this RFA however, since there was an intervening edit by Flo which I didn't see I misfired and a) reverted to the wrong prior edit (the one that followed my notice) and b) accidentally removed Flo's edit. Ex-Homey 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot leave a message at User talk:PinchasC as that page is semi-protected, I have sent him an email instead. And he has responded.
  • FloNight is already aware of this RFA
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Ex-Homey

Withdrawn See . Ex-Homey 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) I was formerly User:Homeontherange. My former account was never banned, rather, I abandoned the account for various reasons, partly frustration at[REDACTED] and partly the suspicion that it had been compromised. I no longer have the account's password and thus cannot edit from that account, additionally it has been blocked and desysopped on my request. While there was an RFA against that account at the time that I left it was for a review of admin permissions and did not extend beyond that.

I have been in the process of withdrawing from[REDACTED] however I have continued to edit under single purpose accounts which with one exception I have tended to use only for a day or so.

Today, Jayjg declared these various accounts to be sockpuppets of Homeontherange and blocked them despite the fact that a) Homeontherange was never banned and b) none of the edits by those accounts were tendentious. Nevertheless he has labelled them all "abusive sockpuppets". This is wikilawyering and an attempt to use WP:SOCK as a pretext for his arbitrary actions despite the fact that WP:SOCK was not actually violated by the existence of these accounts.

As well, as I use a semi-public computer cluster along with a few hundred other people in my building, Jay's action has also declared several accounts I am uninvolved with as sockpuppets, including one belonging to my roomate.

I attempted to rectify this situation using User:Ex-Homey by pasting a "former Wikipedian" tag on User:Homeontherange. User:PinchasC reverted and then blocked me giving "homeontherange" as his justification for the block despite the fact that Homeontherange is not a banned user. I tried to explain this to Pinchas but he responded in an uncivil way by reverting me and then semiprotecting his talk page.

Both these users have thus misused their administrative permissions and acted arbitrarily. They have used wikilawyerly justifications for their actions based on a misapplication of WP:SOCK.Ex-Homey 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: FloNight

FloNight also banned an account of mine on sight despite the fact that Homeontherange was never banned by ArbComm or the community. After the fact she argued that there is a community ban when, in fact, no such thing has been done. In the face of opposition she unilaterally declared that there was a community ban in effect and banned User:Homeontherange despite the fact that that account had already been banned at my own request. This ban was lifted by Fred Bauder. Flo is engaging in an Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to retroactively justify her arbitrary and out of policy bans. Ex-Homey 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to SlimVirgin

In fact Sonofzion is not "confirmed" and was never "confirmed". The CheckUser result at the time was "likely" and there is evidence that someone who signed themselves Sonofzion (and later daughterofzion) is in fact in Sweden suggesting "Sonofzion" may have been someone off continent who perhaps made it appear that he was editing from Toronto by using a proxy server or dummy computer. Jay seems to have conveniently changed the finding several weeks after the fact based not on a new checkuser run (since that account has not resurfaced in the past month) but on his own wishful thinking. I specifically asked if Checkuser showed same system or not same system and was never given a reply. SV is deliberately misrepresenting the facts as is Jay by including Sonofzion in a confirmed sockpuppet cat. Given dynamic IPs the number of anon IPs is quite meaningless. The other alleged sockpuppets were either single purpose accounts (since it was my intention to leave and not start a new permanent account) or are not mine but either my roomate's or others started via an IP feed shared by our co-op. None of them violated WP:SOCK save for one instance in which someone was asked to review a page for a possible 3RR violation by SlimVirgin in which ignorance of 3RR was feigned. The Homeontherange account at Mediawiki was an obvious imposter and I sent Fred and a steward an email to complain about it at the time and there is no reason, except for Slim's vivid imagination and her wishful thinking, to suspect that the other mediawiki account she lists was me. I see by some of her talk page chatter that she is now accusing anyone who has a different view than her on animal rights pages of being me - this may be a convenient pretext to use to delete contributions she disagrees with but other than that it's bogus. I have shown no hesitation to confirm accounts I have actually used but if Slim wishes to go on a self-serving witchhunt to stamp out edits contrary to her fringe animal rights opinion so be it.Ex-Homey 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to PinchasC

Post hoc ergo propter hoc there was no talk of a community ban prior to Flo banning me on sight. This was introduced as an after the fact justification. It also makes no sense to argue that someone should be subject to a community ban because there are imposters pretending to be him. Ex-Homey 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Jayjg

That was accidental. What I was trying to to was revert my own removal of the notice of this RFA as I had decided to go ahead with it. Look at and specifically as well as where I made the identical edit comment of "this seems to be necessary". I did not see Flo's intervening edit and because of that I a) reverted to the wrong prior edit and b) removed Flo's edit inadvertently.

In any case Jay, your post to ANI misrerepesented things by mischaracterising edits and also implying that several of the alleged sockpuppets had been banned for "disruption" when, in fact, only one had and not because the edits it made were disruptive but because Flo mistakenly assumed it was a Wordbomb sock because the account asked if Mantanmoreland's CheckUser results were going to be posted. If you misrepresented the situation similarly to the ArbComm then you obtained permission to act under false pretences. Since you are an involved party in past disputes you should have left this to someone else. As it was you distorted and misrepresented in order to obtain a desired result. Ex-Homey 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Committee

*Two admins (at least) oppose the community ban which means there is none in effect. What I need is a clear understanding that I am free to edit without FloNight, PinchasC, SV or anyone else blocking me under the false pretense that I am a banned user.

::If there *is* a community ban then I would like to appeal it (something that is now permitted according eg Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal. If there is no community ban then I want that to be stated clearly. Ex-Homey 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Query to FloNight

according to Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community

The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

Accordingly, since ChrisO below, for instance, says there is no community ban will you still ban me? If so, if ChrisO or another admin unblocks me will you respect that?Ex-Homey 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is another attempt by Homeontherange to use arbitration as a platform to cause more chaos. In the last few weeks, he has used 15 confirmed sockpuppets, some of them abusive, one of them in order to evade a block for 3RR. He has also posted using 20 anon IPs, including proxies, sometimes claiming to be Homey, then denying it a few edits later and claiming his computer/user account had been compromised; or that other disruptive editors were pretending to be him. He used these ambiguities to create confusion over whether he had asked to be desyopped, over whether he was leaving, and over whether he had filed a previous RfAr. He is having a laugh at everyone's expense and has come close to exhausting the community's patience. See the proposed community ban suggested by Thatcher131.

Sonofzion was used to evade a 3RR block. Deuteronomy was used to file a 3RR report against an admin who had blocked Homey for 3RR. Fluffy the Cotton Fish (who Homey claims is a friend of his) was used to comment on the nomination to the Mediation Committee of Pinchas, who had filed an RfAr against Homey. Schroedinger the Cat was used to accuse me of admin abuse, and deliberately gave the impression that he was banned User:WordBomb in order to cause confusion. Hunting Thomas was used to make provocative edits to PETA, an article Homeontherange had previously stalked me to (but had otherwise no interest in). Hunting Thomas also pretended to William_M._Connolley that he was a new user who didn't know about 3RR, which is evidence that the account was being used deceptively in violation of WP:SOCK.

I request that the Committee not allow him to prolong this disruption with yet another arbitration case. SlimVirgin 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed accounts:

Suspected:

Confirmed IP addresses (these have either been posted on the check-user page or Homeontherange has admitted to them, so there is no private information here about his location that is not already known):

Suspected:

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I must say that Homey has a lot of gall to even write this request. He has almost been as disruptive since he has "left" than he was before. He has an entire drawer of sockpuppets following around his former enemies, and in some cases making disruptive edits, . Homey has always had a tendency to go to ridiculous heights to try to get his way, but this situation just takes it to a whole new level. In this situation however I really don't see how it can accomplish anything besides backfiring in his face.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:KimvdLinde

I really do not know where you have found such a definition but I don't think it was anywhere on wikipedia. There is always one or two people defending even the most odious users. If we had to get the consensus on evey single person or even every single administrator before we enacted a community ban then I doubt anyone would ever be banned at all. Think about it, Willy on wheels would be running wild and free, Xed would still be making progressively crazier and crazier accusations of a vast conspiracy, that crazy religious guy would still be trying to convert people, Brandt and Merkey would have scared everyone off[REDACTED] by now. No, I don't think universal consensus is needed for this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Homeontherange

I must say that Homey's argument that Slimvirgin is basically just accusing everyone who diagrees with her of being socks of his, really sounds similar to every other time he denied that various sockpuppets belonged to him. I would say that even for someone who does not have access to checkuser reports, the evidence against him is rather obvious. His statements are beginning to look more and more like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and his annoucements of American soldiers setting themselves on fire in the streets of Baghdad in fear of the dreadful Iraqi army. In other words, to believe he is telling the truth flies in the face of all reason and common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arbcom wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight 14:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Selected comments from User talk:FloNight#Ex-Homey thread.

Fred Bauder explains reason that he unblocked Homey's accounts.

I have unblocked Ex-Homey to participate in the arbitration request he made. He is limited to editing only arbitration pages. I will use checkuser to enforce this. Fred Bauder 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account. Fred Bauder 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FloNight explains the reason all Homey's accounts are indef blocked.

My blocks have nothing to do with an editing dispute. As far as I can recall, I have never edited an article with Homey. My indef blocks are purely based on his use of disruptive sockpuppets which are proven by Checkuser... FloNight talk 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will reblock Homey if he edits outside of arb case pages. FloNight 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

Following up on FloNight's statement above, I don't think the assertion that Homeontherange is under a community ban is accurate - the block log has this entry:

20:16, 26 July 2006, KimvdLinde (Talk) blocked Homeontherange (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Per request of Homeontherage per e-mail)

I assume this was done in the light of the apparent compromising of the Homeontherange account. No community ban applies in this case as far as I know. -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:KimvdLinde

Community bans can only be applied when no body objects, and I objected, so there is no community ban. That I did not unblock any of his accounts is that it will probably end up in a wheelwar, where other admins will reblock as I am likely to be considered involved. -- Kim van der Linde 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Reinserted by SlimVirgin . -- Kim van der Linde 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience: Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users Currently, I do not see that strong and wide consensus beyond editors that have been involved in various content disputes with Homey. That he was not community banned was confirmed by Fred Bauder here I however, would very strongly suggest to Homey that he limits his editing to the ArbCom cases. -- Kim van der Linde 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The ruling states: The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban. Seems clear to me. -- Kim van der Linde 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:PinchasC

The abuse committed by Homeontherange is fully elaborated in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeontherange and by Slimvirgin, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg and the others above.

In regards to the claim of him that I blocked User:Ex-Homey, the reason was because with his username he may have been impersonating Homeontherange. I noted this by placing a suspected sockpuppet or impersonator tag on his user page, as he claims that there are multiple users using his ip and accounts. And even if it was Homeontherange, then as FloNight wrote above that there was community support and as Jayjg wrote in AN/I arbcom support for the banning of his sockpuppets. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jayjg

Before tagging and blocking Homey's sockpuppets I consulted with the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I was advised to go ahead, and to note the fact that I had done so on WP:AN/I, which I did: I also note that the IP address which brought this case vandalized my User: page before doing so: , and is one of a series of IP addresses claiming to be Homey, or claiming that other addresses claiming to be Homey are, in fact, not Homey, or various other deliberately confusing and disruptive actions and scenarios intended to spread FUD. Jayjg 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bhouston

A user who goes by the username User:WordBomb among others was actually responsible for a lot of the shinnanigans as well as the original accounts that Zeq believed were sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Whether WordBomb and Homeontherange are the same people is a different question -- although I think it is established that they are different people because WordBomb has a history of abuse (I think SV mentioned this once) while Homeontherange doesn't. I can present evidence to this effect. WordBomb was incredibly effective as a troll. --Ben Houston 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at . --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Link is no longer good. Fred Bauder 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka tock 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Specifically this edit, which I still stand by. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alienus

The Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alienus arbitration has been on indefinite hold since he seemed to have left the project. However, this week Alienus has returned and is using sockpuppets to edit war tendentiously. For example, compare this new edit with this old edit from February where he signs his name . So far he has used the addresses 24.44.189.249, 24.44.189.175, and 67.90.197.194. Because this seems to be a flagrant attempt to evade this accepted Arbcom case I would like to request that the case be moved back to active status, and furthermore an injunction against the use of such sockpuppets whil this case is ongoing, enforcement to be accomplished through reverting edits and indefinite block on sight. Nandesuka 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's he's used 24.44.184.238 as well. Nandesuka 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There's also a question about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Proposed decision. -Will Beback 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Archives

 Category:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions Add topic